3 million? 4 million? 5 million?

MyOlde · October 13, 2002, 09:50

Can someone tell me the differences (and benefits) when choosing between a world that is 3 or 4 or 5 million years old?

Or point me to a thread that discusses this?

Many thanks in advance.

Sheik · October 13, 2002, 10:18

A five million year old world will be flatter. If you choose to use a three million year old world however you are more likely to have iron and other strategic mountain resources nearby.

MyOlde · October 13, 2002, 12:06

So, the older the better. Why would someone choose "flatter"?

Thanks

MyOlde · October 13, 2002, 12:07

Sorry -- the other way around. The newer the better.

Sheik · October 13, 2002, 12:14

Quote:

Why would someone choose "flatter"?

To either make things interesting or because the flatter the map the more room there is to expand and the faster that expansion can take place.

ChrisiusMaximus · October 13, 2002, 12:37

All true but it also offers the opportunity to have different game variety so for example I might like to try a flatter world with the Germans today and next time the Romans in the Himalayas,it aids replayability.

Purple · October 13, 2002, 13:36

I find mountains a nuisance and especially frustrating when I find myself alone on a smallish continent with lots of mountains, leaving few suitable city-founding tiles.

Also defending a city bordered by mountains can be problematic.

vmxa1 · October 13, 2002, 13:54

I seem to see more large swaths of jungles when I use 4bc. I hate jungle when it is many tiles deep. I had a huge land mass with a giant patch in the middle that buried several starting locations.

Prince · October 13, 2002, 14:40

I really hate that as well, I often (read: nearly always) encounter HUGE jungles and deserts in my (5bc) maps. Not only is it terribly annoying to have all that junk in your map, but it also doesn't encourage the AI to find *good* starting locations for a change. I understand the AI values territory high as it's directly linked to the domination victory, but building cities on 2-tile islands consting of a jungle and a mountain (or 3-tile polar no features islands, as in my most recent game) is just too much.

MiloMilo · October 13, 2002, 15:48

does the age of the planet affect the number of resources available (I mean directly, not just by affecting the number of mountains)?
I'm playing a game on a 3 billion year old earth, large map, 12 civs (miraculously all still alive at 1000AD), and I've only seen about 7 saltpeter sources. I've changed the BIC, but not the number of resources.

vmxa1 · October 13, 2002, 16:04

I would think so, in that the more mountains the more chances for resources and luxs that can only occur in mountains. The more mountains, the less of other types, so those tiles will impact some resources. Age affects terrain, which affects resources.

Jaybe · October 13, 2002, 20:05

Young world (3 billion years) has terrain and resources more clumped, so you will find larger masses of grass, plains, mountains, luxuries, etc.
Old world is more homogenized.

I do not really appreciate the differences in my games because I randomize the age. My only real preference for game setup is for large continents, and a world that is at least 'standard' in size.

MiloMilo, I presume you have used the 'clear map' (Ctrl-Shift-M) to confirm that cities are not on top of saltpeter.

Arrian · October 14, 2002, 09:15

3 billion will often give a serious advantage to industrious civs, because the terrain tends to be more rugged. Plus, if you get a nice start spot, you very well may have the only one

-Arrian